General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

There are no degrees of crooked. To make sure, she has 25 plus years of history on her side. Also no degrees of being a known liar. Once a person lies as much as HRC, do you start believing her this time?
 
theiioftx said:
There are no degrees of crooked. To make sure, she has 25 plus years of history on her side. Also no degrees of being a known liar. Once a person lies as much as HRC, do you start believing her this time?
Click to expand...

No degrees of being a known liar? You're making the case for all politicians to be tabbed liars.
 
Common view, but largely untrue in my book. Because someone fails to keep a campaign promise, I do not necessarily call them a liar.

But when a POTUS tells me, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," when evidence came out that he was told it would not be that way - it is a lie.

When someone knowingly tells congress and the public that she turned over all of the email when she did not - she is a liar.

Lapdogs will eat it up anyway and turn a blind eye.
 
theiioftx said:
Common view, but largely untrue in my book. Because someone fails to keep a campaign promise, I do not necessarily call them a liar.

But when a POTUS tells me, "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," when evidence came out that he was told it would not be that way - it is a lie.

When someone knowingly tells congress and the public that she turned over all of the email when she did not - she is a liar.

Lapdogs will eat it up anyway and turn a blind eye.
Click to expand...

When someone says they'd release their tax returns when the audit is complete then when it's pointed out that 2008 has exited the audit and refuses to release them? Is that a lie too?
 
theiioftx said:
There are no degrees of crooked. To make sure, she has 25 plus years of history on her side. Also no degrees of being a known liar. Once a person lies as much as HRC, do you start believing her this time?
Click to expand...

Every president has been at least a little crooked and/or dishonest, either directly or by association with senior aids or supports. Just from my memory since 1980 or so, you have:
  • Reagan: debategate; the Iran hostage-for-weapons deal; Iran Contra;
  • Bush I: I don't remember much in the way of scandals and lies about him -- the only thing that ocmes to mind is the Iran Contra pardons
  • Clinton: Lewinsky; Whitewater; Brodderick (sp?) and other rape allegations
  • Bush II: Read my lips; WMDs in Iraq; Lawyergate; Scooter Libby; White House / RNC email deletion; start of gunwalking
  • Obama: continuation / expansion of gunwalking; IRS / Tea Party; you can keep your insurance (and other lies about Obamacare); Benghazi;
Again, this is not meant to be exhaustive. It is meant to show that all politicians at this level are crooked. If there is no degree of crooked / liar, as you suggest, then Reagan is just as crooked as Clinton. That, of course, is not true.
 
New Florida poll also has Trump up
He has men, whites, independents and even 40% hispanic -- that seems like a pretty good number.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/FAU_Florida_August.pdf

"BOCA RATON, Fla. (August 24, 2016) – Republican nominee Donald Trump leads Democrat Hillary Clinton in Florida 43 to 41 percent, with Libertarian Gary Johnson taking 8 percent and 5 percent undecided, according to a new survey by the Florida Atlantic University Business and Economics Polling Initiative (FAU BEPI).
****

For the presidential race, both candidates are underwater in terms of their favorability ratings in Florida. Trump scores a 41 percent favorable and 56 percent unfavorable rating, while Clinton has 40 percent favorable and 58 percent unfavorable rating. Clinton, meanwhile, has a loyalty score of 90 percent (those who have a favorable opinion and are voting for her), while Trump has a loyalty score of 94 percent. Trump leads among males 46 percent to 36 percent, but trails Clinton among women 45 percent to 41 percent. Independents are voting for Trump by a wide margin of 47 percent to 26 percent.

Trump leads among white voters 49 to 33 percent, but trails with African Americans 68 to 20 percent, as well as Hispanics 50 to 40 percent.
 
Last edited:
CNN's over the top anti-Trump bias has put them in the ratings doghouse. CNN now ranks below Adult Swim and Lifetime Television (but they do manage to eek ahead of Hallmark).

Cqp8IUYXYAEXoxb.jpg
 
I get it. You expect and have no problem with the POTUS being a known liar and earning $100's of millions of dollars selling favors as Sec of State. I have a different standard. In the cases above, all of the supposed lies (Read my lips - was Bush 1) came after they were in office as POTUS. I doubt any one of those would be elected had their transgression occurred prior to their election. For Bush 1, he lost a lot of Republican support for his broken promise.

Carry on - I know you are with Hillary!
 
Here is an example of how national pollers like YOUGOV (Economist) get to something like "Clinton +3"

Of those polled --
48% were Dem respondents
33% were Republicans
14% were Indies

CqqD6-nUsAEESi7.jpg
 
Seattle Husker said:
When someone says they'd release their tax returns when the audit is complete then when it's pointed out that 2008 has exited the audit and refuses to release them? Is that a lie too?
Click to expand...
I did not hear that the audit was over. I am pretty sure it isn't, and he said he would release them after the audit was over. I have not paid that much attention to the tax returns, am I wrong?
 
Seattle Husker said:
This is a perfect example of throwing **** against the wall and hoping something sticks. .....
Click to expand...

Here is the AP's response to these type of "shoot the messenger" attacks on their investigative reporting (avoid the merits, attack the source). Liberal catfights in public are unusual and usually entertaining. We can only hope this circular firing squad continues for some time.

This is all so Clintonlike, isnt it? They complain the AP has not told the full story when it is the Clinton's themselves fighting the AP in federal court that keeps the full story from being told.
--------------------------

"The Associated Press’ reporting relied on publicly available data provided by the State Department about Hillary Clinton’s meetings, phone calls and emails, cross-referenced against donor information provided by the Clinton Foundation and its related charities on its websites.

As AP wrote, our reporting was based on Mrs. Clinton’s calendars covering the entirety of her tenure as secretary of state and on more detailed schedules of meetings and phone calls covering roughly half that period. AP first requested Mrs. Clinton’s calendars and schedules in 2010 and again in 2013 but was unsuccessful. AP then sued the State Department in federal court to obtain the schedules it has received so far. AP expects to receive the remaining files before Election Day and will continue to examine them and report on their contents.

AP has been transparent in how it has reported this story. It focused on Mrs. Clinton’s meetings and calls involving people outside government who were not federal employees or foreign diplomats, because meeting with U.S. or foreign government officials would inherently have been part of her job as secretary of state.

We focused on Mrs. Clinton’s meetings and calls involving those people outside her duties as secretary of state whom she chose to include in her busy schedule.

This reporting was done by the same AP investigative team that discovered Mrs. Clinton’s private email server and traced it to her basement in Chappaqua, New York, and whose reporting last week resulted in the resignation of Donald Trump’s top campaign strategist. AP has been examining issues facing the presidential candidates and will continue to do so."

https://blog.ap.org/announcements/ap-statement-on-clinton-foundation-donors
 
Mr. Deez said:
Prepare for Trump to flip-flop. Link.

So much for the BS narrative that despite his faults (fiscally liberal, dumb on policy, colossal buffoon on foreign policy, acts like an *******, etc.), Trump will at least have resolve and principle on illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

He flipped. Per CNN and FoxNews. From the CNN article...

Donald Trump suggested Wednesday that he would allow exceptions to let some undocumented immigrants to stay in the US, vowing he wouldn't grant citizenship but telling Fox News, "there's no amnesty, but we work with them."

For Trump, whose rise to the Republican nomination was based in large part on his hardline immigration policies, the comments are the clearest sign yet that he is reconsidering his pledge to deport all of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US, a key part of his campaign platform.

"No citizenship. Let me go a step further -- they'll pay back-taxes, they have to pay taxes, there's no amnesty, as such, there's no amnesty, but we work with them," Trump told Sean Hannity when asked if he would allow for exceptions to his long-held position.

He continued: "Now, everybody agrees we get the bad ones out. But when I go through and I meet thousands and thousands of people on this subject -- and I've had very strong people come up to me, really great, great people come up to me -- and they've said, 'Mr. Trump, I love you, but to take a person who's been here for 15 or 20 years and throw them and their family out, it's so tough, Mr. Trump,' I have it all the time. It's a very, very hard thing."
Click to expand...
 
Seattle Husker said:
He flipped. Per CNN and FoxNews. From the CNN article...
Click to expand...

"Remember all that talk about deporting all the illegals? JUST KIDDING!!!"

I never supported his former position on illegal immigration, but it still astounds me how much of a self-serving, unprincipled hack he is. He demonized Jeb Bush and John Kasich for holding what is basically the same position as he's now adopting. They just didn't ******** and lie during the primary like he did.

And people call Hillary Clinton a liar.
 
Last edited:
A few more comments on where Clinton Foundation based upon what is publicly known at this time -- this from IBT

"Arms exports: Last year, an International Business Times series documented the ways in which many major foreign governments that had donated to the Clinton Foundation ended up receiving a boost in arms export authorizations from the Clinton-led State Department. Federal law explicitly designates the secretary of state as “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales” of arms, and the State Department itself says it “is responsible for managing all government-to-government transfers of military equipment to other countries.” Early in her term, the State Department called one arms deal for a Clinton Foundation donor, Saudi Arabia, a “top priority” for Clinton.

Many of the donor countries that benefited were those that the State Department criticized on human rights grounds, including Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Some of the same countries received boosts in arms classified as “toxicological agents” as they worked to crush pro-democracy protests during the Arab Spring uprisings."

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-ca...-update-key-details-about-financial-political
 
Business dealings: In May, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Clinton Foundation “set up a financial commitment that benefited a for-profit company part-owned by people with ties to the Clintons.” The newspaper noted that former President Bill Clinton “personally endorsed the company, Energy Pioneer Solutions Inc., to then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu for a federal grant that year” — and that the company ultimately received an $812,000 grant. While the Clinton Foundation openly works with corporations and governments on its philanthropic projects, the Journal notes that “under federal law, tax-exempt charitable organizations aren’t supposed to act in anyone’s private interest but instead in the public interest.”
 
Promoting corporate donors: In 2015, IBT reported that while Clinton Foundation donor Cisco faced criticism over its work with China’s autocratic government, Clinton’s State Department honored the company for “outstanding corporate citizenship, innovation and democratic principles.” Her department also delivered government contracts to the company. The Washington Post in 2014 reported that in 2010, Clinton pushed Russia to approve a $3.7 billion purchase from Boeing. Two months after the deal was solidified, reported the newspaper, Boeing announced a $900,000 contribution to the Clinton Foundation.
 
Oil: A 2016 IBT report found that the State Department approved a permit for a major U.S.-Canadian oil pipeline that environmental groups have criticized. In the lead up to the approval, federal records showed that Chevron and ConocoPhilips lobbied the State Department on the issue of “oil sands,” as did a trade association linked to ExxonMobil. That trio of oil conglomerates have delivered between between $2.5 million and $3 million to the Clinton Foundation.
 
Colombia: A 2015 IBT investigative report found that as a Clinton Foundation-linked project accepted contributions from a Colombian oil firm and its founder, Hillary Clinton did not respond to calls for her State Department to use its power to combat alleged labor abuses at the company. Clinton also switched her position to support the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, actively pushing Congress to ratify a pact she had previously pledged to oppose.
 
Banking: In 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that in “an unusual intervention” by a top U.S. diplomat, Secretary of State Clinton announced a legal settlement that allowed the Swiss financial behemoth UBS to turn over far fewer tax documents than were sought by the IRS in its probe of the bank. “From that point on, UBS’s engagement with the Clinton family’s charitable organization increased,” reported the Journal. “Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014... The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million.”
Related Stories

During the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has said that “when Wall Street executives commit criminal wrongdoing, they deserve to face criminal prosecution.” An IBT analysis found that the Clinton Foundation has accepted $5 million worth of donations from at least nine financial institutions that reached settlement agreements with the Justice Department that required them to pay big fines but let them avoid prosecution.
 
Coal: The Intercept reported this week that in an email exchange, a Clinton Foundation donor hired as a political consultant for Peabody Energy made an effort to secure a meeting between Hillary Clinton and executives at the coal company. The correspondence was initiated by Joyce Aboussie — who gave the Clinton Foundation between $100,000 and $250,000 and worked for the lobbying firm of former House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt. In the email, Aboussie said “It should go without saying that the Peabody folks came to Dick and I because of our relationship with the Clinton’s.”
 
Morocco: In May of 2015, Politico, ABC News and Yahoo reported that Morocco’s state-owned phosphate company OCP donated $1 million to the Clinton Foundation for a conference in Marrakech. The Politico story said “Hillary Clinton’s relationship with Morocco’s government was pivotal” in brokering the meeting and noted that “not long after stepping down in 2013, Clinton joined her family foundation’s board, and that same year OCP donated between $1 million and $5 million to the philanthropy.” Politico also noted that prior to the donations, “as protests raged on Moroccan streets, Hillary Clinton in a joint 2011 appearance with Morocco’s foreign minister praised the king for introducing constitutional reforms and said his country was ‘well-positioned to lead in this area because it is on the road to achieving democratic change.’” Additionally, Politico reported, in 2012 “even as the State Department continued to include Morocco in human rights reports and to flag concerns about government corruption, Clinton launched an ongoing U.S.-Morocco strategic dialogue, praising the country as “a leader and a model.”
 
Algeria: A 2015 Washington Post investigation found that the Clinton Foundation accepted $500,000 from the Algerian government at a time when that country “was spending heavily to lobby the State Department on human rights issues.” The Post reported that Clinton Foundation “officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting” the money, which was earmarked for Haiti earthquake relief.
 
A candidate tacking towards the middle in preparation for the general election - who ever heard of such a thing?

Make up your mind, Deez. When Trump said he would halt illegal immigration and deport illegals, you screamed how it was unworkable and he did not know what he was talking about. So he listens to you and softens his position, and you call him a liar.

Seriously, to compare a position switch to what HRC has done, as if Trump is worse, is laughable.
 
Phil Elliott said:
A candidate tacking towards the middle in preparation for the general election - who ever heard of such a thing?

Make up your mind, Deez. When Trump said he would halt illegal immigration and deport illegals, you screamed how it was unworkable and he did not know what he was talking about. So he listens to you and softens his position, and you call him a liar.

Seriously, to compare a position switch to what HRC has done, as if Trump is worse, is laughable.
Click to expand...

He bullshat a bunch of very, very stupid people with a laughably hardline and rigid position on the issue in order to defeat several candidates who had too much integrity to play his game. Now he's selling those people out. That's not a tack to the middle. It's a lie.

I'll readily admit that Trump's supporters are way too dumb to figure out what happened to them. They voted for him because of his persona and smack talk, and he'll keep that up, which will be enough of a diversion to keep them pacified. The used car salesman sold you a '87 Yugo for the price of a Rolls Royce. Most people would realize they had been taken once they saw the Yugo and pull out of the deal. But you all are going to merrily drive the Yugo around and believe it's a Rolls.

Hillary is a disgrace and horribly unethical. But on issues, Trump's the bigger liar at this point. She will govern closer to what she ran on than he will. As for Trump, if he's willing to bail on this, then his word is absolutely worthless. You have no idea what you're voting for at all. You assume it's better than Hillary Clinton, but you have no idea. It's pure speculation on your part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top